Skip to main content
Glama
berntpopp

mgi-link

by berntpopp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Resolve Mouse Marker

resolve_marker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve any mouse marker reference to its canonical MGI record. Accepts mouse symbols, MGI IDs, or human gene/HGNC IDs to return the official marker and match type.

Instructions

Resolve any mouse marker reference to its canonical MGI record. Accepts a mouse symbol (current or synonym, case-insensitive), an MGI id (MGI:98968 or 98968), OR a human gene symbol / HGNC id (resolved to the mouse ortholog). Returns {mgi_id, symbol, name, marker_type, match_type (mgi_id|current|synonym|ortholog)}. An ambiguous symbol returns an ambiguous_query error with the candidate list (not silently picked). A human symbol identical to the mouse symbol resolves as match_type=current (case collision) rather than ortholog; the marker is the same. Signature: resolve_marker(query, response_mode=).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesA mouse marker symbol (current or synonym, case-insensitive), an MGI id (MGI:98968 or 98968), or a human gene symbol / HGNC id for the ortholog.
response_modeNoVerbosity: minimal | compact | standard | full (default compact).compact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "properties": {
-    "_meta": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "allowed_values": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "candidates": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "error_code": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "feature_type": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "field": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "hint": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "location": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "marker_type": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "match_type": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "message": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "mgi_id": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "name": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "query": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "recovery_action": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "retryable": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "success": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "symbol": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by detailing return fields, ambiguous query error behavior with candidate list, and human-mouse symbol collision resolution. The case-insensitivity and MGI ID format acceptance are also disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with core purpose, and includes key details efficiently. Some sentences are dense but not overly verbose; it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies return fields and covers edge cases (ambiguous symbols, ortholog collisions). It also explains the response_mode parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, it is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by explaining input types for query, case-insensitivity, and example formats like 'MGI:98968'. For response_mode, it lists enum options and default, enriching understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it resolves mouse marker references to canonical MGI records, specifying three input types (mouse symbol, MGI ID, human ortholog). It distinguishes from siblings like get_marker and get_marker_ortholog by explicitly covering ortholog resolution and ambiguous handling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what inputs it accepts and what it returns, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_marker or search_markers, limiting guidance on exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools